Canny Chieftain

The Maratha agitation that threatened to paralyse Mumbai has ended, and with it comes a reminder of Devendra Fadnavis’s political craft. Manoj Jarange-Patil, the campaign’s fiery leader, once again attempted to style himself as the community’s hero. Yet, it was Chief Minister Fadnavis who emerged as the real victor by ensuring that the crisis ended swiftly, peacefully, and on his terms.

From the outset, the protest seemed designed for prolonged confrontation as Jarange-Patil, in a now-familiar tactic, led thousands of supporters to Azad Maidan after defiantly ignoring pleas to avoid disrupting the city during its Ganesh festival. The oft-stated demand was to include Marathas in the OBC quota, even though such a step would inflame caste tensions and falter in court. The agitation quickly took on a hostile edge, with abuse directed personally at Fadnavis, who hails from the Brahmin community.

Yet the government stayed calm. Instead of deploying force or rushing to placate the protesters, Fadnavis allowed them into the city. While this gave Jarange-Patil the appearance of a ‘victory,’ it also trapped his supporters in a space where their survival depended on state tolerance. As days passed, the futility of sustaining the movement in Mumbai became apparent. The demonstrators had spectacle, but no leverage.

Meanwhile, the government proposed that Maratha claims be addressed through records from the Hyderabad gazetteer, allowing needy applicants to benefit without infringing on OBC entitlements. It was a solution prepared in advance and couched in legality, one that could be sold as both fair and workable. Fadnavis underscored that any resolution must remain within constitutional bounds.

The denouement was abrupt as Jarange-Patil ended his fast by sipping lemon water handed to him by Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil, head of the sub-committee. The image of surrender was stark. What had been billed as an unstoppable uprising dissolved within hours. While the government’s framework remained intact, the protesters left with little more than symbolism.

The larger political theatre is worth noting. Sharad Pawar, the Maratha patriarch of Maharashtra politics, expressed sympathy but stopped short of endorsing demands that would hurt OBCs. Uddhav and Raj Thackeray, too, kept their distance. Only Eknath Shinde, the Maratha partner in the state’s ruling alliance, seemed curiously aloof.

This agitation may not be the last and Jarange-Patil will no doubt return to the fray. However, the immediate contest undoubtedly ended in Fadnavis’ favour. By holding his nerve, the Chief Minister ensured that Mumbai’s streets were not consumed by violence. By anchoring the resolution in law, he prevented an OBC backlash. And by allowing Jarange-Patil just enough rope to claim symbolic victory before accepting the government’s terms, he deflated the agitation without looking repressive.

The Marathas have long considered themselves heirs to the legacy of Chhatrapati Shivaji, the warrior king whose image adorns the state’s political imagination. Yet it is Fadnavis who demonstrated the qualities of a great Maratha chieftain with his patience, his guile in negotiation and his decisiveness in resolution.